LAWS(PVC)-1910-7-112

MOJILAL PREMANAND Vs. GAVRISHANKAR KUSHALJI

Decided On July 13, 1910
MOJILAL PREMANAND Appellant
V/S
GAVRISHANKAR KUSHALJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit instituted by Sarasvatibai, widow of Premanand Parbhudas and sister of Jethabhai Valavram, for a declaration that she is the heir of her brother Jethabhai and as such owner of the residue remaining after administering his property under his will.

(2.) Jethabhai Valavram by his will dated 20 of February 1889 gave certain legacies including one of Rs. 300 to the plaintiff and by the last clause provided as follows :- With the property that might remain after paying as above the expenses of my obsequies are to be defrayed. I do make disposition in this way in my consciousness and in order to carry out these dispositions, I appoint after me the following gentlemen as trustees : Dave Gavrishankar Kushalji, Desai Mojilal Premanand, Dave Parbhashankar Purshotam, Desai Desaibhai Kalidas and Desai Maneklal Amratlal, Out of these five, Dave Gavrishankar Kushalji and my nephew Desai Mojilal Premanand should both join and take possession of my properties after my death in accordance with the above will and with the consent of the remaining trustees, they are to dispose of the properties in accordance with what is written in the above will and should any outstandings have to be recovered for giving effect to the said dispositions, they are to do the same and I do by this will give them power to do whatever else they may have to do to carry out the will.

(3.) The trustees named in the will have performed the funeral obsequies which are necessary in the case of a Hindu in the position of the testator, and they have also paid the legacies mentioned in the will. Three of the trustees are now dead. The property of the testator has not been exhausted in carrying out the trusts of the will. It now consists of money advanced upon a san-mortgage-deed for Rs. 1,300, the mortgagees being Gavrishankar Kushalji, Mojilal Premanand, Desaibhai Kalidas and Maneklal Amratlal, and a small sum of cash in the hands of the second respondent.